A Regular Commentary on Strategic Affairs from a Leading Commentator and Analyst
2018 book project: Little Europe? Twenty-First Century Strategy for Declining Powers

hms iron duke

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Demons and Dragons: A Marshall Plan for the Middle East?

“We
are in the middle of a world revolution, and I don’t mean Communism. The
revolution I am talking about is that of the poor, little people all over the
world. They’re beginning to learn what there is in life, and to learn what they
are missing”.

General
George C. Marshall

Alphen, Netherlands. 25
October. With the Battle of Mosul in full swing the next stage of the war
between the Middle Eastern state and anti-state IS forces is about to begin.
This stage could well see more attacks launched around the periphery of the
Middle East, most notably in Europe. On Saturday I listened to US General John
Allen speaking on BBC Radio about what he warned could be a potentially
‘interminable conflict’. General Allen has kindly written the foreword to a new
book William Hopkinson and I have written entitled “The New Geopolitics of Terror: Demons and Dragons” (Routledge) which
will be published in January 2017.

The book is sub-titled Demons and Dragons because it refers to
the range of multifarious and nefarious actors (demons) involved in the war and
which make the struggle for Mosul just one, albeit deadly element, in what is a
generational struggle over faith, ideas, territory and power. It is a struggle
that will not only shape the future Middle East and much of North Africa, but also
much of the geopolitics beyond.

And then there are the
dragons. This is not simply a war between Iraq, Syria, IS, and a host of other
rebel groups. As the involvement of Iran, Turkey and other regional power
attests; the current struggle could simply be the prelude to a general Middle
Eastern war between states. And, beyond the dragons there are the
super-dragons, global powers for which the Middle East is again a theatre for
geopolitical competition, and not just between Russia and the West.

What to do? Perhaps
America’s biggest-thinking and most considered military man what General Allen
told the BBC might surprise some and should be a lesson for all Western
leaders. There will be no military
solution to the conflicts in the Middle East and terrorism will never be
defeated. What matters instead is a sustained coherent, cohesive grand
strategy, and billions of dollars of investment to partner forces for good in
the region (and there are many) that could offer the region’s millions of
people some hope for their future. In other words, what is needed is thus a new
Marshall Plan for the Middle East it could well be the defining foreign policy mission
of the coming US Administration.

The European Recovery
Program or Marshall Plan (named after its architect General George C. Marshall)
was launched in April 1948. Eventually Washington pumped some $12 billion
dollars (about $50 billion in today’s money) into a European economy shattered
by World War Two. Critically, the Plan was not simply an act of American
altruism. Rather, it was a crucial ‘weapon’ in the early Cold War with the
Soviet Union because it was an investment in European freedom and future
prosperity. That is precisely why Stalin and Molotov rejected the Plan.

Now, one can argue about the
efficacy and wisdom of Western-inspired plans to impose democracy on Middle
Eastern societies. However, if one looks at global mega-trends that are also
driving conflict in the Middle East the need for socio-economic reform looks ever
more critical. This means at the very least improved education, prospect of
jobs, reduced corruption and the just rule of law.

Here is where the
challenge really begins. Of late the approach of the US and the wider-West to
the grand challenge posed by the Middle East has been little more than a hand-wringing
counsel of despair. If Western leaders really want to end conflict,
humanitarian suffering and the seemingly endless flows of society-bending migration
flows into Europe then a radical policy shift is needed in which they invest political,
as well as real capital, over the short, medium and long-run. This is after all
a generational challenge.

Paradoxically, for such a
plan to work it would also need NOT to be a Western plan, with a name that was
of the Arab people not of the West. There would also be a vital need to link
local community-based activism to grand strategy via grand policy in much the
same way as the European Recovery Program. The role of charities and other
legitimate agencies that make life bearable in the region would be pivotal,
many of which are Muslim. Work would also be needed to support regional states
and institutions such as the Arab League to see the money regional powers
invest are matched and that political reforms bolster rather that weaken partner
states. Iran and Russia? Like the Marshall Plan Moscow and Tehran would be
invited to participate to demonstrate the Plan favoured neither Shia nor Sunni,
neither East nor West. If, like Stalin and Molotov, Moscow and Tehran refuse to
co-operate then they would be frozen out.

The consequences of failure?
Yet another Western failure in the Middle East would be disastrous, most
notably for Europeans, but above all the people of the region itself. Indeed, the Plan would be as much about securing the
citizens of Berlin, Paris, London et al as those in the Middle East. And it is
this bigness of vision that would perhaps be the greatest challenge to a
generation of post-Cold War European political leaders long on rhetoric, very
short on action and delivery, and even shorter on political vision and courage.

For such a plan to work
it would need to be very big and very long. For, as General Allen said on the
BBC, such a Plan would in turn require politicians to “embrace enormity of
newness of thinking, planning and structure and think very differently”. Is the
West up to it? If not the twenty-first century will be a very cold and a very
dangerous place. What alternative do we have?

About Me

Julian Lindley-French is Senior Fellow of the Institute of Statecraft, Director of Europa Analytica & Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow, National Defense University, Washington DC. An internationally-recognised strategic analyst, advisor and author he was formerly Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy,and Special Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Leiden. He is a Fellow of Respublica in London, and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington.
Latest books: The Oxford Handbook on War 2014 (Paperback) (2014; 709 pages). (Oxford: Oxford University Press) & "Little Britain? Twenty-First Strategy for a Middling European Power". (www.amazon.com)
The Friendly-Clinch Health Warning: The views contained herein are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution.